Dismissed¶¶58

V Ashok Kumar Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Jan 2025WP/838/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court (Amaravati) writ appeal WA 838/2025 (clause 15 Letters Patent), coram CJ Dhiraj Singh Thakur & J. Challa Gunaranjan, decided 28.10.2025 — DISMISSED, no costs. Keywords: Kotamma Cheruvu profit-share; Sy.Nos.404-405 Chamadala Village SPSR Nellore; successors-in-interest of Vanteru family; non-impleaded/non-heard appellants in W.P.No.1343 of 2022 (order dt.04.03.2024); DD payments Rs.7,500 and Rs.57,000; representations to Executive Officer, Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Ulavapadu (Resp.7); W.P.No.11124 of 2025 disposed 30.04.2025; EO rejection order dt.06.06.2025 citing title dispute; unchallenged EO order = right remedy forgone; Endowments Department respondents; IAs under Section 151 CPC closed.

What did the court decide?

The Court found no merit in the present writ appeal. ¶¶57

V Ashok Kumar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants, claiming entitlement to a share of the profits of Kotamma Cheruvu as successors-in-interest of the Vanteru family, though neither impleaded nor heard in W.P.No.1343 of 2022, are entitled to that share. +1 more

¶¶52

Ratio / Principle

The Court found no merit in the present writ appeal.

¶¶57

Key takeaways

The writ appeal was dismissed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous applications pending, if any, were directed to stand closed.ratio¶¶58
The Executive Officer's order dated 06.06.2025 was not challenged by the appellants although challenging it would have been the right remedy available to them.ratio¶¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI — Writ Appeal (Clause 15, Letters Patent) No. 838 of 2025 — Coram: Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Chief Justice & Challa Gunaranjan, J. — Decided 28.10.2025. Subject: Endowments — share of profits of Kotamma Cheruvu (Sy.Nos.404 & 405, Chamadala Village, SPSR Nellore District). The appellants (V. Krishna Reddy and four others), claiming to be successors-in-interest of the Vanteru family, sought reversal — with exemplary costs — of the judgment and order dated 04.03.2024 in W.P.No.1343 of 2022, pursuant to which sums of Rs.7,500/- and Rs.57,000/- had been handed over (through DDs) to counsel for that writ petition's petitioners; the appellants pleaded they were neither made party respondents nor heard therein. Their representations to the Executive Officer of Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple (Respondent 7) went unconsidered, prompting W.P.No.11124 of 2025, disposed of on 30.04.2025 with directions to the Executive Officer to consider them; by order dated 06.06.2025 the Executive Officer rejected the entitlement, citing a subsisting title dispute and directing recourse to the appropriate forum — an order the appellants left unchallenged. HOLDING: the appeal was found devoid of merit and was DISMISSED without costs; connected miscellaneous applications were ordered closed.

¶1

APHC010318832025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI

¶3

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO: 838 OF 2025

¶10

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent be pleased to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order, dated 04.03.2024 made in W.P.No.1343 of 2022 by imposing exemplary costs against the respondents.

¶11

Between;

¶12

V. Krishna Reddy, S/o. Late V. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 75 years, R/o. Chamadala Village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶13

V. Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, Aged about⁵⁴ years, R/o. Flat No. 103, Sahithi Residency, Vedayapalem, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

¶14

V. Lakshmi Narasimha Reddy, S/o. V. Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 54 years, R/o. Patha uru, Chamadala Village, Jaladanki Mandal SPSR Nellore District.

¶15

V. Anji Reddy, S/o. Late V. Konda Reddy, Aged about 68 years, R/o. Chamadala Village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶16

V. Ramanarayana Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 42 years R/o. Chamadala Village, Jaladanki Mandal SPSR Nellore District.

...Petitioners

AND

Vanteru Tirupati Reddy, S/o. V. Ramana Reddy, Aged^{about58years,} R/o. Chamadala Village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore^District.

¶22

Vanteru Venkata Narsa Reddy, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged about 74 years, R/o. Chamadala Village, Jaladanki Mandal,^SPSR Nellore District.

¶23

Vanteru Chinna Krishna Reddy, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged about 69 years, R/o. Chamadala Village, Jaladanki Mandal,^SPSR Nellore District.

¶24

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Amaravati.

¶25

The Commissioner of Endowments, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶26

The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Near Rangaraidu^Cheru Ongole Town and Mandal, Prakasham District.

¶27

Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Ulavapadu Village and Post, Ulavapadu Village, Prakasam District Rep. by its Executive^Officer.

¶28

iA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the Certified copy of the Order,^{dated04.03.2024made} in W.P.No.1343 of 2022, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶30

IA NO: 4 OF 2025

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders, dated 04.03.2025 made in W.P.No.1343 of 2022, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioners: SR! N RUPESWAR REDDY

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T C KRISHNAN No.4 to 6; GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondents : M/S. DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Counsel for the Respondents Endowments

¶34

The Court made the following order;

¶35

APHC010318832025

¶36

Bench Sr.No:-141 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3552] AT AMARAVATI

¶37

WRIT APPEAL NO: 838 of 2025

¶38

V. Krishna Reddy and others

¶39

...Appellants

¶40

Vs.

¶41

Vanteru Tirupati Reddy and others

¶42

...Respondents

¶43

********** Mr. N. Rupeswar Reddy Advocate for Appellants Mr. T. C. Krishnan Advocates for Respondents AGP for Endowments

¶44

Ms. Devi Subhashini Anne, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶45

CORAM -.THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶46

DATE ; 28th October 2025

¶47

P C :

¶48

The present Writ Appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters^Patent,has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated^{04.03.2024,passedin} W.P.No.1343 of 2022.

¶49

The writ petition supra was preferred by the petitioners^seeking the disbursement of specific share from the profits of Kotamma cheruvu situate in Sy.Nos.404 & 405 of Chamadala Village in^{SPSRNelloreDistrict.By} virtue of the judgment and order impugned, learned^{StandingCounselforSri} Venugopala Swamy Temple informed the Court that money^throughDDs

¶50

2 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.838 of 2025

¶51

amounting to Rs.7,500/- and Rs.57,000/- had been handed^{overtolearned} counsel for the petitioners.

¶52

In the present writ appeal, the appellants claim that^theytoowere entitled to receive the share on account of being the^{successorsininterestof} Vanteru family in relation to the Kotamma Cheruvu. It is stated that the appeltants had not been heard by the learned single^{Judgeastheywerenot} made party respondents in the aforementioned writ petition.

¶53

It appears from the record that representations had^alreadybeen filed by the appellants herein before the Executive^{OfficerofSriVenugopala} Swamy Temple/respondent No.7 herein which were not^been considered, which forced them to approach the learned single Judge^{ofthisCourtbyway} of W.P.No.11124 of 2025, which was disposed of by virtue^{ofjudgmentand} order, dated 30.04.2025, whereby directions were given to the Executive Officer of the said Temple to pass appropriate orders^{ontherepresentations} which had been filed by the petitioners/appellants^herein.

¶54

It appears that, pursuant to the directions so issued, the entitlement of the appellants was considered by the^{ExecutiveOfficerofthe} said Temple but rejected by virtue of its order, dated^06.06.2025. It was held that since there was a title dispute with the share holders, it would be appropriate to obtain orders from the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The said order has not been challenged by the appellants which would have been the right remedy which the appellants could^haveavailed.

¶55

¶56

HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.838 of 2025

¶57